Steve

I'm not sure the math on trading CC works. One of the things I hope to explore this summer is the cap situation of the central teams. I would think the Hawks have to get an experienced goalie to replace him (think only 4mm difference on CC vs new guy). Shaw, panik, Rasmussen (or other) is at least a 2mm raise. Kruger cap raise of 1.5mm. Net zero. So trading CC allows you to resign shaw and absorb Kruger's raise.

I realize I am missing a lot of parts - hence the summer work I want to do.
- Jason Millen

oh you are right it'll take more then just Crawford, but it's a start and an asset teams will actually want and gives Bowman SOME leverage.

Putting the team in a 3-1 smacks of arrogance.
I think it was Maria that used the "evil genius" moniker.
We can call it whatever but we've seen this film before.

IMO, to the uninformed or maybe casual fan, it DOES look like Q is sorting things out and then makes some magical changes to get magical results.

For this sad sack, it's frustration-city with the guy. I know all about the 800 wins and the 3 Cups. I also know he's had a stacked lineup since taking over the good ship Blackhawk. And I'd argue that had some thing been done differently, we might be talking about the 5 or 6 CUPS including at least 1 b-t-b Cup runs instead.

I still point to the post-season-ending interviews with Toews, Kane, Keith where things were alluded to that point the finger right back at Q. None of those guys are going to come out publicly and state those feelings, certainly not those guys making the biggest $'s. Listen and read between the lines. I hope Q's post-season sit down with Bowman, Blunk, McD takes him to task for this year.
- savvyone-1

I agree and did you see/hear him immediately flip the tables at Bowman when addressing Shaw and stating how irreplaceable he is? Talk about a power move and putting the pressure on your GM. Maybe he never thought Saad was never leaving but that was one for the ages. I couldn't believe it....I like Shaw a LOT but that was a bold move......

Stan's been in this position in 2010, 2013, 2015, and again in 2016.

It's easy to say Stan should have traded Bickell earlier, but we don't know if that was a legitimate possibility and what the cost would be. Stan had to take back $4.2 million and lose Johns just to offload Sharp (who still contributes) and his $5.9 million cap hit. It's scary to think what it would have cost the team to trade Bickell.

How would you have managed the cap differently? I'm not suggesting you couldn't find better ways but keep in mind that Sharp and Bickell have NTCs which complicate matters significantly.

I guess my point is that we'll never know what could have been done differently. Were there better options for Sharp? Was there a reasonable trade for Bickell? Could Toews, Kane and Kruger all have signed for less? Could Stan have got more for Saad? Lots of people seem to think the answer to all of these questions is yes but we will never know for sure. At this point it makes more sense to focus on the future then worry about the past.
- DarthKane

Well pointed out. However, I know first hand Bickell could have been extended preplayoff run in 2013 for a helluva lot less so I am going to stand by that horrible deal. He overpaid because he didn't have an in house replacement and Bickell went beast mode smelling the cash. Taking a page out of Buff's book.

The Kruger deal is bad. Too much for a guy who has now gone something like 59+ games without a goal and routinely is given chances to skate with better players and like Bolland before him can't produce. He's a glorified PK guy who can win draws, but really....at 3+ million can you afford to keep him on a cap strap team? I dont' think so.

Sharp.....well....it's a matter of what you believe with the off ice. Could they have won the cup still last year without him? Great question. It's debatable.

I just view this summer as a huge turning point. Teuvo doesn't seem to be the next big thing. you dont' have a lot of prospects to gush over down on the farm, and not a lot of money to fix them.

Huge challenge for Bowman.

I agree and did you see/hear him immediately flip the tables at Bowman when addressing Shaw and stating how irreplaceable he is? Talk about a power move and putting the pressure on your GM. Maybe he never thought Saad was never leaving but that was one for the ages. I couldn't believe it....I like Shaw a LOT but that was a bold move......
- SteveRain

I did, sounded a bit like a little spoiled brat.
These guys need to be on the same page.
Moreover, given the Cap position of the team and the fact they had already won multiple Cups, no one was just falling over themselves to help the Blackhawks organization.

So IMO, Stan may have not been perfect (giving up Johns in the Sharp deal, waiting too long to launch Sharp since he was the one they voted off the island -- if he had an opportunity to take picks or prospects and NOT take back any $/players, he FUBAR'd that up pretty good).

Yet Stan did get a D man that SHOULD have been capable of filling a hole.
He did get a F that SHOULD have been capable of filling a hole.
Both provided speed, something we lost in the Saad scenario.

And Q seemingly refused to figure out how to use Daley. Yet Sullivan apparently had little problem in doing so. Similarly, Boudreau sure made use of Garbutt while he only caught Q's ire while here.

IDK, there's plenty of blame to go around. And don't think for a moment that the stars on the ice weren't affected by all of this. I'm disappointed in our stars. And more disappointed by our coach and FO for allowing all this to happen.

Correct, but over simplification. The moves were driven by the need to generate cap space and Stan was dealing from a weak position (at no fault of his own).

I will be an interesting summer, I want to see how Stan addresses the team's needs with so little cap space to start.
- DarthKane

Stan held onto Sharp too long just as he held onto Leddy too long, overplayed his hand. So to say "no fault of his own" is absurd. It's VERY probable the entire mess was his fault.

But I get it, some simply refuse to believe Stan is anything other than a genius....he is great and deserves no scrutiny like the boys (Seabrook and Toews) seem to routinely get.

Going to get stones thrown at me, but I hope you guys win the cup. Would rather lose to the champion, add some more spice to this rivalry, then see you guys bow out this round. Not a fan of Dallas.

Plus I travel to STL so it's good for business if you guys win.....
- SteveRain

Duck, Steve!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

Banking on this Kempny to be 4a with TVR 4b, so to speak, is a risky move but it all depends if Stan can add competent& cheap 6&7 Dmen. If I know StanBo's style, I expect another tweak to the depth and get left out to dry next summer with the raise for Panarin due. Next summer someone not named Panarin with a large cap hit needs to go. There are no NHL ready players for any position besides Goaltender. Seabrook is not the guy unless it's a lopsided trade for the Hawks(keep dreaming after that Round 1 and new cap hit/term).

Crow or Seabs or Panarin is not IF, but WHEN. I say get ahead of the salary cap or continue to purge talent for minimal to no return.

I did, sounded a bit like a little spoiled brat.
These guys need to be on the same page.
Moreover, given the Cap position of the team and the fact they had already won multiple Cups, no one was just falling over themselves to help the Blackhawks organization.

So IMO, Stan may have not been perfect (giving up Johns in the Sharp deal, waiting too long to launch Sharp since he was the one they voted off the island -- if he had an opportunity to take picks or prospects and NOT take back any $/players, he FUBAR'd that up pretty good).

Yet Stan did get a D man that SHOULD have been capable of filling a hole.
He did get a F that SHOULD have been capable of filling a hole.
Both provided speed, something we lost in the Saad scenario.

And Q seemingly refused to figure out how to use Daley. Yet Sullivan apparently had little problem in doing so. Similarly, Boudreau sure made use of Garbutt while he only caught Q's ire while here.

IDK, there's plenty of blame to go around. And don't think for a moment that the stars on the ice weren't affected by all of this. I'm disappointed in our stars. And more disappointed by our coach and FO for allowing all this to happen.
- savvyone-1

Again, same page....With Daley I didn't hate the trade at the time because he was an Oduya esq player who was prone to some bad plays (pizza man) but figured with him paired with Hammer would help, and Garbutt was a beast at times to play against. The thing we dont' know is why Daley asked out? Was it just Q or something else? Who knows.....

The double standard at times is questionable. Shaw takes some moronic penalties but when Garbutt did he got chained to the bench.

Like you, disappointed in stars not playing better as ultimately that's why they lost. Long time off now as I am NOT a baseball fan.

And Panik. Not sure how or if he is in the club's plans, but don't count him out yet. Also, you are welcome to your opinion but success has a cost. It inflates players value beyond what they are worth. (see: Bickell, Bryan) The team has paid these players for a combination of things. 1) Stanley Cups. 2) STANLEY CUPS!

That's all that matters. Teams want players that have tasted the success of winning Stanley Cup(s) and will pay to get it sometimes. (see: Bolland, David)

Sure the contracts are inflated, but you can't operate a business like it won't succeed in the future. And if you want players to come play for you, you have to take care of them monetarily, since that's what players want at the end of the day most of the time.

As for the Kane and Ross situations, sure the Hawks botched them. I would love to hold any team/corporation to a higher standard, but the first thing teams protect is themselves. Damage control isn't that at all. It usually does more harm than good. But the one thing that does help is time. McD and the FO HAD to address the Kane situation and well, didn't do a good job at all. But, in the end, they let the system play out and we don't know what happened, but just from the way it ended up and the way the prosecutor was talking, sounds like Kane was right. Not being a fan boy, I don't know what happened, but coming from someone running for office and who doesn't fear prosecuting sexual assault cases to just up and discredit the victim, that's pretty telling.

Ross should have been cut immediately, the only thing I can think with him is...let it play out in the courts and then let him go at the end of the season. Not right, but again, teams circle the wagons.

I've learned that walking away from a team isn't going to work because I can guarantee you that there is something that will make you want to walk away from EVERY team in the league. Every team is covering up something.
- CanOCorn

To me, seems the Hawks overreacted on Kane by trying to get too far in front of it--when it was squarely in the legal realm (only under investigation at the time). It was beyond awkward and blew up in their faces IMO.

With Ross, they seemed to try to keep their distance, claiming to know nothing until around the point charges were being filed. The Hawks handling of Ross seemed a reaction (perhaps a bit frozen?) to their previous aggressive response to Kane's. Both mishandled, but hardly worth dropping the team as a fan IMO.

What I really don't get is the team re-instating Ross right away. Also the wording on the press release was really poor imho. It baffled me at the time and still does, especially after the events of last summer and fall.
- Jason Millen

Who really knows what happened with ross and McNeil 's ex gf. Bigger crimes have been committed then sending pics of a adult over a phone. And Kane's the girl was a gold digger and fabricated pretty much everything the hawks were right to stand with both players. However ross seems to have regressed so I could see the hawks cutting the cord because they just don't want it keep getting brought up. Others players have had things come up early in there careers and a change if scenery does wonders. Doug Gilmour and Brendan shanahan come to mind.

Despite wanting to assume that a little rest/surgery for the core will lead us back to the promised land, I'm not sure this is the case. And if this year is cap hell with Shaw, wait until next year when Shaw, Panarin, and Teravainen come up for raises at the end of 2017... LOOK OUT!!

I think the FO needs to look long and hard at how the Hossa and Seabrook contracts will play out, given that both are in decline. The FO wants to assume that a little re-tooling will work for next year, but I think think they need to seriously consider a mini-rebuild.

I say they should go the route of the brave blogger here a few threads back: Trade Seabrook AND Crawford this summer. If you even trade Crawford for a good D-man, but Seabrook is still in decline, then you still have blue-line problems.

They need to use these pieces to get back two young, cost-controlled defensemen and use the extra space first to pick up a cheaper goalie. Then they give Panarin his Tarasenko-sized raise or Panarin pulls a Brandon Saad.

Otherwise it's death by a thousand cuts... Shaw gone this year, choose Panarin over Crawford in 2017, and Seabrook is still in decline when Crawford hopefully brings you a #4D.

Be bold now, gain some cap flexibility, and aim for a Cup a few years down the road after Hossa has retired. Keith will be 35, but Kane and Toews will be 30. Sounds a lot like Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk in 2008.

Interesting point of view on goalies and coaches. You could throw Rinne into that situation as well with goalie coach Mitch Korn leaving Nashville and now coaching Holtby in Washington.
- wrister

Bryzgalov and Smith in AZ with Sean Burke another example. Bryzgalov goes to Philly and can't stop a beach ball. Smith is a waiver wire pick up and lights it up in AZ.

Dubnyk would be an example of a goalie with talent going from a team with no defense to a defense 1st team.

Stan held onto Sharp too long just as he held onto Leddy too long, overplayed his hand. So to say "no fault of his own" is absurd. It's VERY probable the entire mess was his fault.

But I get it, some simply refuse to believe Stan is anything other than a genius....he is great and deserves no scrutiny like the boys (Seabrook and Toews) seem to routinely get.
- kwolf68

Based on how things panned out it appears that way. But my point is that we do not know what actually went on behind the scenes and I doubt we ever will.

I acknowledge that Stan may have waited too long to trade Sharp & Leddy, but it's also possible he didn't.

I'm not saying Stan is a genius, but I do think he is a good GM. I think he's smart enough to learn from his mistakes and if he made the mistake of holding on to Leddy for too long it's unlikely he'd make the same mistake again.

We follow sports and have favourites teams as an escape from the troubles of everyday like. I make the choice to approach things in a positive manner and enjoy the success the team has had rather than nit-pick every situation that doesn't work out in our team's favour. I have enough craziness in my real life that I don't need any from the sports teams I follow.

Despite wanting to assume that a little rest/surgery for the core will lead us back to the promised land, I'm not sure this is the case. And if this year is cap hell with Shaw, wait until next year when Shaw, Panarin, and Teravainen come up for raises at the end of 2017... LOOK OUT!!

I think the FO needs to look long and hard at how the Hossa and Seabrook contracts will play out, given that both are in decline. The FO wants to assume that a little re-tooling will work for next year, but I think think they need to seriously consider a mini-rebuild.

I say they should go the route of the brave blogger here a few threads back: Trade Seabrook AND Crawford this summer. If you even trade Crawford for a good D-man, but Seabrook is still in decline, then you still have blue-line problems.

They need to use these pieces to get back two young, cost-controlled defensemen and use the extra space first to pick up a cheaper goalie. Then they give Panarin his Tarasenko-sized raise or Panarin pulls a Brandon Saad.

Otherwise it's death by a thousand cuts... Shaw gone this year, choose Panarin over Crawford in 2017, and Seabrook is still in decline when Crawford hopefully brings you a #4D.

Be bold now, gain some cap flexibility, and aim for a Cup a few years down the road after Hossa has retired. Keith will be 35, but Kane and Toews will be 30. Sounds a lot like Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk in 2008.
- DMChi2010

By itself this won't be enough, but it will help for sure. Other changes are definitely required.

Bryzgalov and Smith in AZ with Sean Burke another example. Bryzgalov goes to Philly and can't stop a beach ball. Smith is a waiver wire pick up and lights it up in AZ.

Dubnyk would be an example of a goalie with talent going from a team with no defense to a defense 1st team.
- Weakglovehand20

Dub-step was in Nashville for 3 months and was Bryzgalov-esque (Philly version 0-1-1) in his play as backup. Korn stated that his fundamentals were poor and until he was willing to completely revamp his style, our team, who was looking for a backup at the time, should take a pass. Put on waivers and picked up by Montreal and sent to AHL. His play in Minni, was and is significantly different from before. His effort level is less and efficacy is more. Watching both, he's very different. So, it's not all the play in front of you, maybe 60-40 team vs player?

Banking on this Kempny to be 4a with TVR 4b, so to speak, is a risky move but it all depends if Stan can add competent& cheap 6&7 Dmen. If I know StanBo's style, I expect another tweak to the depth and get left out to dry next summer with the raise for Panarin due. Next summer someone not named Panarin with a large cap hit needs to go. There are no NHL ready players for any position besides Goaltender. Seabrook is not the guy unless it's a lopsided trade for the Hawks(keep dreaming after that Round 1 and new cap hit/term).

Crow or Seabs or Panarin is not IF, but WHEN. I say get ahead of the salary cap or continue to purge talent for minimal to no return.
- EnzoD

This x 1000. It's why I suggest they bite the bullet and do a mini-rebuild rather than just some re-tooling tweaks. NOW.

Eric Lear ‏@BHTVeric 8s8 seconds ago
#Blackhawks announce Artem Anisimov had surgery on his right wrist. Team doctor expects full recovery in 6-8 weeks.
- DarthKane

Probably made taking faceoffs pretty hard

I saw Crawford play before the NHL and a few sub games before he was established. Early on a lot of Hawks fans thought nothing much of him and I thought he would be goodand even commented here to that extent(of course the first play off meeting I was trying to talk myself into believing he was not). Then later I hoped it was more of a hot streak, but reality is he is that good. He should be the Vienza winner this year.

Remember JJ that during the off season when the Kane crap happened you made mention that perhaps rehabbing Kane's image and thus his value would be smarter than just jettisoning him off when his value was low?

Now is the time to send him home to Buffalo where the Hawks could relieve themselves of cap and scoop up some high quality young assets. First player coming back would have to be Reinhart. I doubt Eichel would or could be involved. But then you take their top first rounder this year and you take some other forward assets.

Then you can keep your top core players. Hossa is not going anywhere and if he does it will be a recapture issue that no other team would want to take on and Hossa I am sure would not want to go anywhere.

The Hawks are not far from the peak. The goalie covered the warts. Kane scored goals and did at a higher pace because of his new linemates. Insert another kid there and bam the drop off would not be as great as trying to find out if a back up can truly be a starter.

Plus moving Kane removes any chance he acts like an idiot in the off season again.

We have a winner!!!!
- Return of the Roar

Missing from that math is the fact with Crow you'd also have to pay a backup after this year. So you're saving the difference between Crow and whatever Darling would make.

Putting the team in a 3-1 smacks of arrogance.
I think it was Maria that used the "evil genius" moniker.
We can call it whatever but we've seen this film before.

IMO, to the uninformed or maybe casual fan, it DOES look like Q is sorting things out and then makes some magical changes to get magical results.

For this sad sack, it's frustration-city with the guy. I know all about the 800 wins and the 3 Cups. I also know he's had a stacked lineup since taking over the good ship Blackhawk. And I'd argue that had some thing been done differently, we might be talking about the 5 or 6 CUPS including at least 1 b-t-b Cup runs instead.

I still point to the post-season-ending interviews with Toews, Kane, Keith where things were alluded to that point the finger right back at Q. None of those guys are going to come out publicly and state those feelings, certainly not those guys making the biggest $'s. Listen and read between the lines. I hope Q's post-season sit down with Bowman, Blunk, McD takes him to task for this year.
- savvyone-1

I can't take credit, I think it was pdx2ord.

I was the one who used "lineup (frank)ery" to describe Q's management of the roster

Again, same page....With Daley I didn't hate the trade at the time because he was an Oduya esq player who was prone to some bad plays (pizza man) but figured with him paired with Hammer would help, and Garbutt was a beast at times to play against. The thing we dont' know is why Daley asked out? Was it just Q or something else? Who knows.....

The double standard at times is questionable. Shaw takes some moronic penalties but when Garbutt did he got chained to the bench.

Like you, disappointed in stars not playing better as ultimately that's why they lost. Long time off now as I am NOT a baseball fan.
- SteveRain

I think JJ mentioned that Daley never or almost never was given minutes with Hammer. What makes that extra annoying is that Q kept 2 and 4 together despite being wretched all year as a pair, and then also didn't give Daley the best opportunity to succeed.

That sure the (frank) ain't Q.
Next.
- savvyone-1

No disagreement here Savvy. Q has really cut the confidence in some players. Watch that kid get traded, learn on the job, and become a full time NHLer. Bound to happen.

I saw Crawford play before the NHL and a few sub games before he was established. Early on a lot of Hawks fans thought nothing much of him and I thought he would be goodand even commented here to that extent(of course the first play off meeting I was trying to talk myself into believing he was not). Then later I hoped it was more of a hot streak, but reality is he is that good. He should be the Vienza winner this year.

Remember JJ that during the off season when the Kane crap happened you made mention that perhaps rehabbing Kane's image and thus his value would be smarter than just jettisoning him off when his value was low?

Now is the time to send him home to Buffalo where the Hawks could relieve themselves of cap and scoop up some high quality young assets. First player coming back would have to be Reinhart. I doubt Eichel would or could be involved. But then you take their top first rounder this year and you take some other forward assets.

Then you can keep your top core players. Hossa is not going anywhere and if he does it will be a recapture issue that no other team would want to take on and Hossa I am sure would not want to go anywhere.

The Hawks are not far from the peak. The goalie covered the warts. Kane scored goals and did at a higher pace because of his new linemates. Insert another kid there and bam the drop off would not be as great as trying to find out if a back up can truly be a starter.

Plus moving Kane removes any chance he acts like an idiot in the off season again.
- BluemanGuruu

There are a few problems with that idea.

First, Kane was literally the only Hawk forward who was consistently good throughout the season. You also don't replace the showtime aspect of someone who can show up in big games at the right time. Like his OT winner against the Blues, how many minutes had he played that night before taking a shot with a bum hand and then getting his own rebound on the other side of the net...

Second, Panarin's stock goes down without Kane. Obviously they have to separate them at some point, but maybe it's wise to do it after Panarin has fully adjusted to NHL-style hockey.

Third, he may be a problem off the ice for the organization but he is part of The Core that allegedly separates this team from others. You already dealt Sharp and I'd argue that losing him (and 2-cup Oduya) had more of an affect on the locker room/team morale than I think was anticipated. Trading Kane (or Seabrook for that matter) is another huge cut into that core and who knows what that does to the remaining ones

Missing from that math is the fact with Crow you'd also have to pay a backup after this year. So you're saving the difference between Crow and whatever Darling would make.
- bhawks2241

Can only protect one goalie in the expansion draft and CC already has the NMC.

Players with two or less completed NHL seasons are exempt. Meaning they can't go in pot for movement, and dont need to be protected. That protects Panarin and Darling.

I don't think the Hawks are a #4 D away from fixing their issues. Where are the goals going to come from? You'd have to think the Hawks need at least 235-240 goals to be comfortable next year. They scored 234 this year. Most years, teams need to be around 235-240 to be 5th offensively. 220 puts you around the middle of the league, so you need great D/goal-tending to compensate. The Hawks, in their good years where they could outscore the goal tending issues were putting up 260+per year. The Hawks only scored 220 in 14/15 but managed to somehow only give up 186.

So lets say you have a depth chart something like this. I added some projected goal totals based on career #s and how the players have been performing recently.

Hawks Forwards in 15/16 scored 203 goals and the D added 31.

Forwards (205 goals)
Panik - 15(+8) Toews - 30(+2) Hossa 15(+2) (60 goals)
Hossa probably doesn't reach 20, but Panik may score more if given the icetime.

Panarin - 30(0) AA - 20(0) Kane - 35(-11) (85 goals)
Panarin probably consistent, AA maybe maintains 20 goals (but not a given) and Kane probably comes back down to earth a little.

Shaw - 17(+3) Kruger - 7(+7) TT - 13(+1) (37 goals)
Shaw maybe scores a little more like average, Kruger nets a few and TT probably puts about the same.

Desjardins - 7(-1) Rasmussen - 8(+4) (Some scrub 5-8 goals) (23 goals)
The 4th line guys probably score like 4th line players.

Defense- (32 goals)
Seabrook had a career year for goals, probably will be closer to his average. Keith/Hjalmarsson probably close to average while the youngsters maybe chip in a little more.

Seabrook - 8(-6)
Keith - 8 (-1)
Hjalmarsson - 3 (+1)
TVR - 5 (+2)
Gustafsson - 4 (+4)
Svedberg - 4 (+2)

Who do you move to get rid of Bickell and how much goal scoring depth will that cost you? What do you give up to get a #4D? What if you also can't afford to keep Shaw? These numbers are just projections, but I think they are reasonable estimates, assuming these players play most of the year. What happens if Kane or Toews or Panarin are injured? I think if the Hawks have to sacrifice much forward depth they will have to become near perfect defensively to compensate. If you trade Crawford, you are gonna have to bank on scoring a lot more.

I think unless the Hawks find some luck again like they did with Panarin, the situation doesn't add up to an improvement next year.